Posted by tecwrg on 7/31/2014 1:04:00 PM (view original):"suddenly tightening the standards makes no sense and defeats the purpose of the Hall of Fame".

That's a ****-poor argument.

Essentially, what you're saying is that it makes no sense to close the barn door once the horse has escaped. Yet you're ignoring the fact we're possibly putting new horses in the barn every year with each new HOF election. I want the damn door closed for next time.

Doubling down on bad decisions is not a very good approach. If fact, it's downright stupid. One can even say it provides low marginal utility.

It absolutely makes sense.

Say one day you take a little kid to the Hall of Fame 20 years from now. He looks at the third basemen (or whatever position) in the Hall of Fame and asks, "so dad/grandpa/old guy who kidnapped me, these are the best third basemen that ever played?"

Would you rather say:

"Yes, these 23 include the greatest of all time though there are probably a few that got in on reputation before we really understood baseball."

"No, most of these 14 guys got in before we understood baseball and because of that we stopped allowing other greats into the Hall."

Because, if Beltre isn't good enough to get in, who is? Not every Hall of Famer has to be Babe Ruth. Guys like Derek Jeter deserve a spot too.

You seem to be resigned to accepting that the HOF is what it is, that's what it has to continue to be going forward, so we have to live with a low set bar forever.

I don't agree. While we may not be able to undo the damage that was done in previous elections, and particular by the old veterans committees that were fraught with cronyism, I'd rather get things back on track going forward. Accepting an arguably ****** system with a sense of resignation should never be a satisfactory course of action. That's a defeatist attitude.

Also, consider this . . . if we're not going to allow ourselves to raise the bar, what's going to prevent us from allowing the bar to continue to be lowered even more?

You seem to be resigned to accepting that the HOF is what it is, that's what it has to continue to be going forward, so we have to live with a low set bar forever.

I don't agree. While we may not be able to undo the damage that was done in previous elections, and particular by the old veterans committees that were fraught with cronyism, I'd rather get things back on track going forward. Accepting an arguably ****** system with a sense of resignation should never be a satisfactory course of action. That's a defeatist attitude.

Also, consider this . . . if we're not going to allow ourselves to raise the bar, what's going to prevent us from allowing the bar to continue to be lowered even more?

I've never been to Coopertown. But I've been to Monument Park and the Ted Williams Museum in Tropicana. With my wife, who if I had to put a baseball knowledge age on, would rate out at a pre-teen. She became a baseball fan because I am a baseball fan. She knows the stars and she knows the basics. She does not know Adrian Beltre. Nonetheless, I'm starting to ramble like you, the trips to MP and TWM were fun because I could point out the great players, talk about their accomplishments and she got it. It wasn't too much. Now transfer that to father/son in Cooperstown. Does he want to talk about Blyleven or Walter Johnson? Babe Ruth or George Kell? Does the kid want to know about Blyleven or Kell? Are they historically significant?

That's why I'm more "Small Hall" guy. I want historically important not "top guy at his position for 5 years". Making things cumbersome or overwhelming to the average fan is a stupid way to sell a sport.

I've never been to Coopertown. But I've been to Monument Park and the Ted Williams Museum in Tropicana. With my wife, who if I had to put a baseball knowledge age on, would rate out at a pre-teen. She became a baseball fan because I am a baseball fan. She knows the stars and she knows the basics. She does not know Adrian Beltre. Nonetheless, I'm starting to ramble like you, the trips to MP and TWM were fun because I could point out the great players, talk about their accomplishments and she got it. It wasn't too much. Now transfer that to father/son in Cooperstown. Does he want to talk about Blyleven or Walter Johnson? Babe Ruth or George Kell? Does the kid want to know about Blyleven or Kell? Are they historically significant?

That's why I'm more "Small Hall" guy. I want historically important not "top guy at his position for 5 years". Making things cumbersome or overwhelming to the average fan is a stupid way to sell a sport.

There are 44 first ballot HOFers. There is your small hall. Eliminate limits on numbers that can be voted for, and limit years of eligibility and I think you would get the best of the best. Keep the Veterans committee around to provide perspective.